Sonfield claims that there is overwhelming medical, social and economic benefit to contraception access. The complete opposite is true.

Undeniable medical evidence confirms that use of the pill increases a woman's risk and incident for Breast, Cervical, and Liver Cancer. Prior to the pill and the widespread use of contraception there were known to be 5 sexually transmitted diseases. Today there are more than 30. Will treatment be free for these 50+ million US men and women who are reported to have incurable genital herpes (Source - Sexual Transmitted Disease Surveillance and Statistics, The US Center for Disease Control and Prevention)? And what about the health of unsuspecting young girls who now use hormonal contraceptives for a minimum of 4 years prior to their first full term pregnancy? Is it also a "health benefit" that according to the Guttmacher Institute they will have a 52% higher risk of developing breast cancer (Mayo Clinic Proceedings)? I think not.

On the social end, it is clear from the admitted behavior of those who receive early access to contraception that they have sex sooner. Had Mr. Sonfield not cited only selected research from his employer, he would have disclosed that Guttmacher's own research confirms that 60% of women have abortions because of failed contraception. Therefore, always and without exception, increased contraception means increased abortions. Contraception is abortion's feeder system - and Gutmacher, Planned Parenthood, and Obama know that.

And how ironic is it to mention the 'Healthy People 2010' goals as a reason for pushing contraception (many methods of which are known abortifacients)? Socially, a recent report by researchers at the Wharton School of Business confirms that mothers are more unhappy today than ever before. It states: "If the pill made motherhood 'better,' then one would expect that mothers would be happier now than they were in 1972, before the birth rate fell dramatically as contraception use expanded. Instead, as, between 1972 and 2006, the happiness of U.S. mothers fell just as dramatically." This helps identify the widespread 'post contraceptive regret' that is felt in the hearts of women across America who mourn the children that God intended for them yet they knowingly prevented or aborted.

With 50+ million surgical abortions, an estimated 250 million chemical abortions from hormonal contraceptives, and nearly 20 million individual new cases of STD's reported in US every year, it is time for the advocates of Planned Parenthood's own research arm, Guttmucher Institute, to be held accountable to taxpayers for the straight facts.

Women and young girls should not be misled into a lifestyle of contraception that carries more medical costs and emotional pain than the benefits its purports to bestow. It is time that the focus once again be placed on America's greatest resource: children.

Dare Mr. Sonfield argue with that?

Jenn Giroux is a Registered Nurse and the new Executive Director of HLI America, a new program of Human Life International founded to educate on the physical, emotional, and spiritual harms of contraception and to highlight the beauty of having children. She and her husband, Dan, have nine children and live in Cincinnati. See http://www.hliamerica.org/ for more information.

Condoms have a 10 to 15% failure rate in preventing pregnancy in real world usage. (And if it fails 10% of the time in preventing pregnancy, and a woman can only get pregnant approx 7 days a month, but can get AIDS 31 days a month, the failure rate of condoms in preventing AIDS is that much higher, which is why it is malfeasance at best to recommend condoms to prevent AIDS.)

Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for multi-room McMansions, for "families" with no kids or only 1.1 kids, would be amusing to God, in your opinion?

Especially when those very couples are engaging in behavior deemed by the entire witness of Christianity (until the 20th century) to be sinful (ie, contraception, abortion, & sterilization) in order to prevent the birth of the very children that should be filling those McMansions?

Its not a matter of pride. I know the mind of God on this quite well, because He shared it with me:

"God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

“God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

That is the best "proof text" for the fallacy of the concept of overpopulation. There is no rescinding of Genesis 1:28. Anyone who claims "there are too many people" is clearly out of line with Scripture. If such were possible, God would have told us.

The myth of overpopulation is a demonic deception.

The devil hates mankind, because every child conceived can go to heaven, where the devil can never again tread. It was the concept of man - the combination of an eternal soul and a physical body - with free will, that lead to satan's rebellion in the first place.

Every soul the devil prevents from being conceived is a little demonic victory against God, IMHO.

The Apostle Paul leaves a good deal of day-to-day life to the conscience of the person. Since God never put a number on “be fruitful and multiply,” shouldn't a person's conscience, steered by seeking God, be a guide? And if a couple together chooses that zero, one, two, or 15 kids is enough, isn't that the business of the couple?

The biggest economic crisis facing mankind is an overabundance of production capacity, resources and goods and a falling fertility rate.

There's no scarcity anywhere -- except that which has been caused by regional or global government corruption, greed, malfeasance and evil. We don't have too many people, we have too many bureaucrats.

One last thought:

Poverty is when you have too many people for the resources of a given geographic area. When we see people living in poverty, we have a Christian duty to assist them. Scripture is crystal clear on this point.

But what happens when, by verbal engineering, you give poverty a new name?

By calling it overpopulation, you remove from yourself any obligation to assist them that scripture demands. You can then tell those living in poverty, "Its your own fault! If you'd just stop having babies, you wouldn't be living in a state of overpopulation." Then we can assuage our guilty conscience by sending them condoms and Norplant and suction vacuum abortion kits, instead of corn and educational and infrastructure assistance, and feel morally superior for our worldly wisdom and helping stop global warming.

Scripture talks about that too:

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' 37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

if a couple together chooses that zero, one, two, or 15 kids is enough, isn't that the business of the couple?

Now you're getting into a Natural Law debate, which is beyond the scope of this thread.

Suffice it to say that according to Natural Law theory, we have a moral obligation as Christians, in the eyes of God, to contribute to the propagation of the species. Furthermore, the primary ends of marriage, as instituted by God, are the bearing and education of children.

If Christian couples refuse to have children, they better have a damn good reason for doing so when they come before the Judgment Seat of God.

Since God never put a number on be fruitful and multiply, shouldn't a person's conscience, steered by seeking God, be a guide?

Since a fertility rate of 2.1 is required just to maintain a stable population and keep it from crashing, and no economic growth has ever occurred in the context of population contraction, a very good secular argument could be made that, for those able, three children per couple would be a bare minimum.

Who said anything about having more children? There are ways to avoid getting pregnant while still enjoying a happy sex life. Natural Family planning is a proven method. As a Catholic Husband and Father this method does work.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.